Free Will - Does it exist?

[Bill3000]

I think there is a place in a bible where it is said that humans have free will, so I kind of agree with this quote, in sense "IF Bible was the Truth, it says that..."

It isn't in there explicitly, otherwise Calvinism wouldn't exist, though it's common in many denominations to believe that it exists.

 

[bardolph]

I think there is a place in a bible where it is said that humans have free will, so I kind of agree with this quote, in sense "IF Bible was the Truth, it says that..."

Regardless of what it may or may not say in whatever edition/translation/interpretation of the Bible you may be reading at any particular moment in time, what do you believe?

I tend to view the Bible as a reference rather than an authority.

 

[Perfection]

references aren't authorities?

 

[bardolph]

references aren't authorities?

Perhaps I should clarify. I tend to view the bible as a reference rather than a literal-commandment-directly-from-god-on-high.

 

[Perfection]

What sort of reference? Calling it a reference doesn't give us a clear picture of your relationship to the bible.

 

[Fronx]

Regardless of what it may or may not say in whatever edition/translation/interpretation of the Bible you may be reading at any particular moment in time, what do you believe?

I do not believe. For me religion and bible is like stonehenge. There are theories of how it come to be, and why was it build, but I do not 'believe' in one of those theories. Some are more plausible theories than others, but I wont choose one theory above other in 'believing' manner.


But, someone should get this discussion back on the track.

 

[bardolph]

What sort of reference? Calling it a reference doesn't give us a clear picture of your relationship to the bible.

Well, I haven't read it all, so I can't say I have a relationship to all of its parts.

I would call it a source of stories, knowledge, and wisdom gathered over thousands of years. Its cohesion (which books are included) is based on decisions made by various ecclesiastical councils over a wide span of history. I can only assume that many of these decisions were political in nature, but I also assume that overall these decisions were more spiritually motivated than political.

I guess I can call it a reference of "orthodox" Judeo-Christian thought, and I use the term "orthodox" loosely, since there are numerous translations and versions of this work.

Whenever someone quotes the Bible, I regard the quote as I do any other quote: as the words of a respected authority, perhaps misquoted or taken out of context, perhaps not. Whenever someone quotes William Shakespeare, Thomas Jefferson, or Albert Einstein, for example, I tend to pay attention, because these are people whom I respect. I apply the same rule when someone quotes the Bible, especially when those words are attributed to Jesus Christ, whom I believe was the greatest teacher the world has ever known.

I also recognize that the Bible has many authors, and each has his own interpretation of Divinity. For example, I tend to agree more with Matthew and Luke than I do with John, whom I admit I have trouble understanding at times. I haven't made up my mind about Paul, since I haven't read enough of his books to form a personal opinion. The books of Moses form a pretty spectacular narrative, but I don't believe that the Laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy apply today the way they did when they were written.

That help?

 

[bardolph]

I do not believe. For me religion and bible is like stonehenge. There are theories of how it come to be, and why was it build, but I do not 'believe' in one of those theories. Some are more plausible theories than others, but I wont choose one theory above other in 'believing' manner.


But, someone should get this discussion back on the track.

Why don't you get this discussion back on track, by answering the question: does free will exist?

 

[lovett]

Which is irrelevant. The question is not whether the course of events from the past to your present is outside your control. If it is, it still does not follow that the path from your present to your future is outside your control. If "lack of control" were transmitted down causal chains, you would have a point. But it is not.

Consider the following parallel: is "lack of humanity" transmitted down generations of offspring? At first glance, it seems quite reasonable to posit that "if your parents weren't human, and their DNA is the cause of your DNA, then you aren't human either." It seems reasonable until you realize that that principle contradicts evolution.

The evolution of humanity from non-human primates was a matter of cosmic luck. But the evolution of freedom in a human child is usually quite deliberate. Good parents, having provided DNA that the child had no control over, go on to provide sustenance that the child has no control over and an environment that the child has (initially) no control over, but that gradually creates a self-controlling, autonomous being. It's not easy - but it's not rocket science, either.

Your present determines your future, correct?
Therefore it is highly relevant if your present is determined entirely by your past. I would say that if ones present, and therefore personality, reactions ectcetera is entirely out of ones control, by extension ones actions (and therefore future) are entirely out of ones control.

Take the following analogy:

A ball starts moving. It travels on a perfectly straight line. It hits another ball. Momentum and energy are transferred according to set physical laws. The second ball begins motion, it hits a beeper after about three feet. An alarm goes off.


In this scenario, did the second ball have any leeway in whether it hit the beeper or not? No, rather it's path was irrevocably set by physical laws and the first balls motion. In the terms above, it's past entirely determined it's present. This present then determined the future. But although this ball did have a present that determined it's future, it would be silly to suggest that this present had any unique and unanticipated affect on the future. The future was set from the first ball.

But it would be quite inconsistent to view C as "just a process of A" if by "just ... A" one intends to imply that B was not the cause of C.

In most deterministic physical theories that have ever been taken seriously, determinism is time-symmetric. From a description of earlier events, one can derive later events, or vice versa. Hence, it makes just as much sense on such theories to view A as "just a process of B, without any independence of its own." Or just as little.

Not really. Causation does flow in particular (temporal) directions. Deriving earlier events from later events is not the same as this. Thus, caling A a process of B open up all kinds on logical difficulties which wern't there before.

 

[Occurance_one]

Now for a completely off tangent point! (yeah), I just felt I had to add something to this conversation....

I think free will is probably an illusion created by our higher level of consciousness than most living things. Either that or its some undefined property or force in the Universe.

<can be skipped>

Most ideas for this hypothesis sprung from the basics of cells (for me). On the basic level we have single celled organisms that are the accumulation of environmental pressures and mutations (at the basic level of genetic information and precursors). Multicellular organisms arose becuz of the selective advantage of communal relationships (which probably lead to the development of apoptosis). Eventually community of cells gave rise to multicellular organisms (due to selective advantages) and then eventually to us (big leap but i think u get the point).

</can be skipped>

Because a cell's complex input/output relationship with its environment lead to our eventual development, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that we are just a more complex manifestation of this? Are we that egotistic to adhere to ideas that we are above a majority of living creatures (depending on how u define freewill). Or is there some fundamental element to life that has yet to be discovered (like what on the molecular level guides certain specific cellular processes in such a particular fashion). We could assume that the physical properties of the Universe (physical laws like weak force, strong force, etc) lead to the spontaneous development of certain structures and their function (ex: basic cellular membranes spontaneously form in aq. solutions), or that some other force is present that either has yet to be detected or is indescernable by us. So yah...

 

[bardolph]

Your present determines your future, correct?

Influences, yes. Determines, no.

Therefore it is highly relevant if your present is determined entirely by your past. I would say that if ones present, and therefore personality, reactions ectcetera is entirely out of ones control, by extension ones actions (and therefore future) are entirely out of ones control.

If A, then B, yes, I agree. However, A is false.

Take the following analogy:

A ball starts moving. It travels on a perfectly straight line. It hits another ball. Momentum and energy are transferred according to set physical laws. The second ball begins motion, it hits a beeper after about three feet. An alarm goes off.

I have two responses:

#1, a ball hardly qualifies as "alive," and I think there is sufficient distinction between the living and the non-living to assume that they behave differently.

#2, if you zoom in close enough to the ball, you will find particles whizzing around in a fashion that can easily be described as "chaos." It is only when you take trillions of such "chaotic" particles, that the law of averages creates behavior that seems orderly.

In this scenario, did the second ball have any leeway in whether it hit the beeper or not?

Yes, it had some leeway, though that leeway is infinitesimal enough to be equivalent to zero. It's certainly possible that if you repeat the experiment a million times, you will find results that are off by distances perhaps as great as a millimeter. Again, if you take trillions of random events, all subject to similar "influences," those influences will, by the law of averages, create a predictable result.

I would argue that animals, by virtue of having a nervous system, allow "random" (i.e. non-deterministic) events to propagate themselves throughout an entire system, allowing the system as a whole to override the law of averages, and follow "will" instead. That is why an animal can behave differently than, for example, a stone. The laws of gravity and inertia assert that things flow downhill, yet a creature can climb to the top of that hill in defiance of these laws.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Your present determines your future, correct?

Theres only the present moment. No such thing as 'the future', or the past.

 

[bardolph]

Theres only the present moment. No such thing as 'the future', or the past.

This is true.

 

[sourboy]

Free will exists (we're all posting/reading here aren't we?), but that's not to say determinism isn't true to some extent. Actions have reactions. Some are constant, and thus semi-determinism.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Your present determines your future, correct?
Therefore it is highly relevant if your present is determined entirely by your past. I would say that if ones present, and therefore personality, reactions ectcetera is entirely out of ones control, by extension ones actions (and therefore future) are entirely out of ones control.

Non sequitur.

A newborn contracts a muscle and for the first time, its foot zooms by its face where the newborn can see it. Having learned the association, the second foot-zooming can be voluntary, despite the lack of choice prior to that point. Little by little, the infant/child/teen adds more and more control to its repertoire. Unlike mass or energy, control is not a conserved quantity.

A ball starts moving. [...]

If we are going to talk about free will, we really ought to focus on things that have a will. Such as people.

A person has leeway, in the relevant sense, if what they do depends on their will. For example if you are standing at a cliff edge and someone stronger than you throws you off, you are forced to fall: that result is independent of your will. But in the normal circumstance, you are free to walk away, jump off, or continue standing there (among other things).

Not really. Causation does flow in particular (temporal) directions. Deriving earlier events from later events is not the same as this. Thus, caling A a process of B open up all kinds on logical difficulties which wern't there before

Sez you. Nothing in the logic or the physics justifies any invidious distinction between earlier and later events. The only physically significant difference is the entropy of the universe at the two different times. We call the lower-entropy states "earlier" and "cause", and the higher-entropy ones "later" and "effect" - but nothing about this makes later events less important than earlier ones.

We should neither say "A is just a process of B", nor "B is just a process of A". Neither earlier nor later events should be denigrated.

 

[warpus]

The concept is that there is an underlying unity to all existence that is permanent and unchanging and that the individual elements of the physical universe in whatever way they appear are just transitory manifestations of that unity.

There are no "arguments" that support it. One can make the claim merely as an assumption in an intellectual argument and build case for some view of the universe. Or One can make it based on experience.

Ahh, so you made it up then. Should have said so from the start!

Sez you. Sans argument or evidence.

I would love to hear how an entity could make choices in a deterministic Universe!

There would only ever be one possible path, in such a Universe... making choice impossible.

 

[scy12]

i don't really understand what free will is and i do not see such explanation here either.

Sentient beings with such complex intelligence as Humans can make different decisions based on variable criteria that are not only due to instinct of survival but due to a combination of factors . They have larger freedom than other animals but are still restricted by their nature.

I want to go with that woman , eat that hamburger due to my nature but i still have some control over it . Although even my ability to make choices is controlled by the ability of my Brain to evaluate risks.. I wonder if the change of opinion is fueled by randomness or by the combination of Fear, Love,happiness , any emotions and other parts of intelligence. But why do i change mood some days ? Why does my brain work differently some times and how ? So the evidence do show favorably on how deterministic the future is but i am still not certain that i can't have some self control where i tell myself when to be afraid and etc . I would agree that there is the illusion of Free will and i believe the complexity of the intelligence of a being and it's control over it can increase it.

 

[Perfection]

Theres only the present moment. No such thing as 'the future', or the past.

This is true.

Uh, why?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

If free will doesn't exist, I don't get to choose whether I think it exists.
But if free will does exist, I should, being a truth-seeking creature, believe that it does exist.
Therefore, I think I choose to believe that free will does exist.

 

[bardolph]

Uh, why?

Because neither the future nor the past can be interacted with, or even demonstrated, at any moment in time. They can be referenced, or described, but never can they be experienced directly. Experience happens only in the Now.